Hi Oleg,
>>> Why not make NO_HOST a little prettier?
I've changed it to "no-host://127.0.0.255:0"
which is a valid HttpHost instance but still
unlikely to collide with any real host.
>> And can we rely
>> on ourselves not adding empty string checks to the
>> HttpHost constructor?
>
> I believe so.
I thought you'd know me better by now :-)
> This is what unit tests are for.
No, this is what unit tests are for...
try {
new HttpHost("");
fail("empty hostname not detected");
} catch (IllegalArgumentException iax) {
// expected
}
>> I also want to be able to identify NO_HOST when it
>> appears in debug output, which is easier if the
>> attributes are not empty.
>
> I believe this is just a matter of having a reasonable #toString()
> implementation.
Are you suggesting to move NO_HOST to core so that
HttpHost.toString can do something special about it?
cheers,
Roland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
